Gender Identity

[stickygirl]

Grrrreat trailer!! Would love to see the whole feature. Have you read Kathleen winter's Annabel.... have I asked you that before?!

 

[Dyslexicea]

I'm not looking to start up another definitions argument, but I think that's the opposite of standard usage. The great majority of sources that acknowledge a distinction between "sex" and "gender" use "sex" for physical/genetic characteristics and "gender" for behaviour/identity. For instance:

Yes dear I realize how those who happen to be in the know identify gender but I also happen to live and write in the real world and truly unless the average person who lives in Australia is better informed than the average American who don't happen to be informed, the whole gender virus sex is lost on them. As a matter of fact for most Americans, I assume Australians also, even using the word sex brings up visions of doing the down and dirty.

Adding to this: a lot of people don't have identical sets of chromosomes in all their cells. A person can have XX in their blood and XY in their skin, for instance. Increasing use of genetic testing shows that chimera/mosaic conditions are more common than most would have guessed. I recently posted a link on the GLBT news forum to a story about an autopsy study which found that more than half of Canadian women autopsied had some XY cells in their brains.

I did by the way read your post. I also did more research on the topic. It's an interesting topic, much more interesting and maybe more important is how the DNA naturally changes within our organs which may lead to a way to cure cancer.

From what I understand the Y chromosomes came from either an absorbed male fraternal twin(very rare) or do to a male pregnancy. In most case the present of a Y chromosome was after birth and was not present until after pregnancy with a male child. What effect, if any, this added Y chromosome may have is unknown. I'm open to it being, at least partly, the cause of some women's change in orientation.

 

[Dyslexicea]

If Stella you took my post as meaning biology is destiny, my point was just the opposite.

 

[haurni]

Grrrreat trailer!! Would love to see the whole feature. Have you read Kathleen winter's Annabel.... have I asked you that before?!

No you haven't, and no I haven't, and it sounds interesting. And it's Canadian, eh?

Here's the Intersexions video, except the images are backwards. Still, there's not much text, and if you're good you can read it.

http://vimeo.com/68679618 (8:08) part 1
http://vimeo.com/68679621 (9:26) part 2
http://vimeo.com/68679620 (6:40) part 3
http://vimeo.com/68744069 (11:33) part 4
http://vimeo.com/68679623 (8:49) part 5

unless the average person who lives in Australia is better informed than the average American who don't happen to be informed, the whole gender virus sex is lost on them.

I think this is the case for most people. But if those who know the difference don't use the words properly, who will, right?

From what I understand the Y chromosomes came from either an absorbed male fraternal twin(very rare) or do to a male pregnancy. In most case the present of a Y chromosome was after birth and was not present until after pregnancy with a male child. What effect, if any, this added Y chromosome may have is unknown. I'm open to it being, at least partly, the cause of some women's change in orientation.

I haven't read up on it, but I imagine it's the cellular version of a teratoma, which can contain hair and teeth and other gross stuff. I expect it might have some small (local) effect on cellular biochemistry, but if there's an overall systemic effect then the chromosomes would probably have to appear in most or all cells and be functional. Still, it's an interesting idea - circulating biochemicals in the blood stream could certainly affect the brain if there were enough of them.

EDIT: Bramblethorn, I looked at the article you posted. There's one quote that's particularly interesting:

One woman discovered she was a chimera as late as age 52. In need of a kidney transplant, she was tested so that she might find a match. The results indicated that she was not the mother of two of her three biological children. It turned out that she had originated from two genomes. One genome gave rise to her blood and some of her eggs; other eggs carried a separate genome.

Women can also gain genomes from their children. After a baby is born, it may leave some fetal cells behind in its mother’s body, where they can travel to different organs and be absorbed into those tissues. “It’s pretty likely that any woman who has been pregnant is a chimera,” Dr. Randolph said.​

If we do indeed contain significant numbers of cells that belong, essentially, to other people, and they can make up entire organs, then it's not inconceivable that one could have hormones in one's blood or brain from the other sex. Fascinating (as Mr. Spock would say).

 

[stickygirl]

Coo! Ta for the links
Yep Annabel based in lovely Canada. Beautifully written, very human family story and the (very loose) inspiration behind Goldfrapp's video Annabel from where I learnt about the book.

 

[Dyslexicea]

I think this is the case for most people. But if those who know the difference don't use the words properly, who will, right?

Yes and No! It depends on your audience, if what you're writing or speaking seems like gobbledygook, your audience is going to tune you out, in the case of the internet hit the back button on their browser.

Anytime you speak or write consider which words to use, if I use words that may better convey my meaning but my audience is not likely to know those words I have in all likelihood failed in providing anything meaningful. I might also add, by constantly using words which are not used by the vast majority of people in daily conversation, a person stands a very high risk of seeming arrogant and we all have a tendency to tune out people we feel are being condescending.

 

[haurni]

I concede that one must often tailor their language to the audience. If one is writing fiction, for example, certain words or ways of writing might better evoke certain moods, even if they are technically incorrect (one of my favourite science fiction authors often made up words that sounded real, and you could tell what they meant in context). However, if we are discussing technical issues in a field in which words have specific meanings (e.g. 'mutation' in a bioscience journal, or 'sex' and 'gender' in a gender studies class or a trans space) then it matters.

When we're talking about the terms people assign to themselves as regards gender and orientation (as we are here) it's also important to understand exactly what is meant by those terms, otherwise they fail as labels. The term 'homosexual', for example, has been used for anyone who has sexual relations with someone with the same genitalia regardless of whether they are bisexual or totally gay (I myself have had homosexual encounters, but I consider my orientation to be bisexual - or heteroinclined ). It has also, in the context of trans people, been used to refer to (e.g.) a transwoman who has sex with a man, even though this usage is considered incorrect and offensive.

 

[Dyslexicea]

When we're talking about the terms people assign to themselves as regards gender and orientation (as we are here) it's also important to understand exactly what is meant by those terms, otherwise they fail as labels. The term 'homosexual', for example, has been used for anyone who has sexual relations with someone with the same genitalia regardless of whether they are bisexual or totally gay

By whose authority do you contend that bisexual men are called homosexual. I do know gay men who'd say all men who claim to be bisexual are homosexuals hiding in the closet but that doesn't make it so.

I wouldn't dispute the term gay being applied to you but gay has become almost meaningless. Gay has more or less become a blanket term for the LBTQ and Gay men community. See I have to now use gay men not just gay to be understood. I'm a gay woman, to me that's bullshit I'm a lesbian. It's become so freaken common that even a liberal news outlets like the huffpost, which should know better, calls their LGBTQ section Gay Voices. Out of respect for my gay brothers I'll continue to use gay as it should be and you are NOT GAY.

I'm adding this, according to the APA a really reliable source, sexual orientation is usually discussed in terms of three categories: heterosexual (having emotional, romantic, or sexual attractions to members of the other sex), gay/lesbian (having emotional, romantic, or sexual attractions to members of one’s own sex), and bisexual (having emotional, romantic, or sexual attractions to both men and women).

 

[stickygirl]

Then it's a good thing public speakers have Q&As to answer question of semantics that are bound to crop up from their audience. Surely the changes in the usage of these terms reflects the fast pace of change in the LGBTQI... community?

You guys can split all the hairs you like, but broadly speaking, ^^^ you're on the same side. If we consider ourselves to be truly a part of the LGBT community then we have to accept that there are always going to be differences between us, thank God. I don't just mean differences in semantics but differences in cultural backgrounds, race, age and each of those is going to influence our use and understanding of language.

Maybe each of us ought to make a promise for the New Year to get involved in the community and press for the changes we all want: to make laws fairer, to stamp out h8t and end discrimination? Maybe you do that already? Maybe I should start a thread for people to brag about something positive they've done in their community? I'm on my LGBT council at Uni, so I'm already ahead!!

Woop - we can change shit! Lets hear it guys!!!
You can do it - you can you can you can can can

Sorry - what was the OP's question again?

 

[haurni]

By whose authority do you contend that bisexual men are called homosexual. I do know gay men who'd say all men who claim to be bisexual are homosexuals hiding in the closet but that doesn't make it so.

I said 'has been'. The use of 'bisexual' for orientation, for example, is relatively recent - I don't think that it was widespread prior to Kinsey - while the use of 'homosexual' and 'heterosexual' for orientation in transgender individuals relative to their assigned sex was more common in the 80s than it is now. In both cases, however, the new definitions are not fully accepted by at least some people, but I'm arguing that the use of the terms has changed (and is changing) in part because those who were so labelled rejected the definitions as they were being used and insisted on redefining the terms.

What I'm saying is that when discussing a topic in which the meaning of these terms is central to the conversation, one should use the proper terms. Also, if one is attempting to educate others about issues for which the correct use of certain terms is important, one should do so as well (consider the terms 'racism' and 'reverse racism', which have popular meanings that often don't match the way in which they are used by anti-racist educators). If you wish to use them improperly in fiction, or as a way to introduce people to their proper meaning, that's up to you. But I think it's important to use words properly where possible both to be clear about our meaning and in order to avoid perpetuating negative stereotypes - bisexuals as closet homosexuals, transwomen who like men as homosexuals, lesbians as unattractive bra-burning women with hairy legs, and so on.

Not what we should do --> "'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'"

I wouldn't dispute the term gay being applied to you but gay has become almost meaningless. Gay has more or less become a blanket term for the LBTQ and Gay men community. See I have to now use gay men not just gay to be understood. I'm a gay woman, to me that's bullshit I'm a lesbian.

Agreed. These are terms that are continuing to evolve as various groups compete to define and/or reclaim them (see also Inga Muscio's discussion on the word 'cunt').

You guys can split all the hairs you like, but broadly speaking, ^^^ you're on the same side. If we consider ourselves to be truly a part of the LGBT community then we have to accept that there are always going to be differences between us, thank God. I don't just mean differences in semantics but differences in cultural backgrounds, race, age and each of those is going to influence our use and understanding of language.

Yep. We're just arguing details, really.

 

[stickygirl]

Time's a wasting...
whaddabout trisexual? Or are we excluding intersex people here?

I knooooow

 

[haurni]

Not at all! Everyone's welcome!

 

[Bramblethorn]

Yes dear I realize how those who happen to be in the know identify gender

NB: I know we disagree strongly on some things, but I do appreciate your opinions. You've said some interesting and intelligent things, including on this thread, and I would much rather have a polite discussion on these topics than turn this thread into a head-butting match.

To that end I'll note that calling somebody "dear" when you're not close to them and have recently been arguing with them can easily be read as passive-aggressive needling. I have no idea whether that's actually your intent - it's hard to gauge tone of voice over the net and I'm not great at it even in person - but it might be better if we avoid that sort of thing.

Yes and No! It depends on your audience, if what you're writing or speaking seems like gobbledygook, your audience is going to tune you out, in the case of the internet hit the back button on their browser.

Anytime you speak or write consider which words to use, if I use words that may better convey my meaning but my audience is not likely to know those words I have in all likelihood failed in providing anything meaningful. I might also add, by constantly using words which are not used by the vast majority of people in daily conversation, a person stands a very high risk of seeming arrogant and we all have a tendency to tune out people we feel are being condescending.

It's certainly important to consider the audience. But the audience in this context is "people on a GLBT forum participating in a thread that's all about issues of gender identity". I think it's safe to assume that most everybody here is well aware of the distinction.

Even to a general audience, I'd still use "sex" for physical attributes. I wouldn't expect them to notice the distinction, but it's still at least as accurate, and it's a better choice on other grounds: as you say, it's better to avoid fancy words when there's a simpler one that fits the bill, and "sex" seems less high-falutin' than "gender".

 

[Dyslexicea]

NB: I know we disagree strongly on some things, but I do appreciate your opinions. You've said some interesting and intelligent things, including on this thread, and I would much rather have a polite discussion on these topics than turn this thread into a head-butting match.

To that end I'll note that calling somebody "dear" when you're not close to them and have recently been arguing with them can easily be read as passive-aggressive needling. I have no idea whether that's actually your intent - it's hard to gauge tone of voice over the net and I'm not great at it even in person - but it might be better if we avoid that sort of thing.

I do have my problems with being passive-aggressive, you're very perceptive, something I'm trying hard to rectify but my use of dear was not meant to be so, at least not consciously.

I really don't mind head-butting. I don't avoid conflict and at times I thrive on it. I admit I can be confrontational, particularly when I believe strongly in something. I also have a bad habit of reacting to quickly and responding inappropriately which does cause some real pain. On the other hand I can be as sweet as apple pie. While I may not wear my heart on my sleeve I am a very caring person.

I do find many of your comments interesting and at times informative even when I disagree. Please don't take it personally when I do disagree with you, even if I'm being pig headed, I'm not likely to change. If I do say something which really offends or hurts you I'm not doing so intentionally. If need be point out how I've offended you and I'll try not to do so again.

 

[blade_rocknut]

This thread should be required reading for.... pretty much everyone. The more people chime in, the more flavors we'll see among the responses; reminding us that even those in the same boat don't necessarily paddle the same.

Caveat; it can show how divisive minor differences can become.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Imy use of dear was not meant to be so, at least not consciously.

Thanks, I'm really glad to hear that

I don't mind a good argument, happy to wrangle all day long, but not if it's getting distressing for people - and I'm not always good at noticing when that happens, or extricating myself when it does.

Getting back on topic...

Making your question even more complicated is gender expression. I never know by such vague questions as "what is your gender identity" how am I suppose to respond. I'm femme my gender expression is to the feminine side. My wife, the love of my life, is stud so her gender expression is more masculine. But both of us identify as women.

Yeah, this is something I've encountered elsewhere and find really interesting, that distinction between male/female identity and masculine/feminine expression. I have a trans woman friend who's a stereotypical jeans-and-flannel butch lesbian; if it was just about expression, it would've been a helluva lot easier for her to be a cis guy and wear the same clothes and have relationships with girls. But identity and expression are both important to her; she's very definite about being a woman and always ID'd that way.

OTOH, I've also heard of people who didn't have that sharp distinction. Aram Hosie (partner of Louise Pratt, one of our federal Senators) ID'd as "hard butch/cis female" when they met, but gradually shifted to "trans male". I have to assume that different people experience these things in different ways.

 

[haurni]

I'm femme my gender expression is to the feminine side. My wife, the love of my life, is stud so her gender expression is more masculine. But both of us identify as women. Again language is a problem to accurately describe my gender expression neither feminine=female, NO, masculine=male, NO, can ever describe how I outwardly and inwardly express myself. There really isn't a yin and yang to gender, we are all both feminine and masculine and many degrees in-between.

As Dyslexicea points out, there is also gender expression. Furthermore, there are also issues of sexual behaviour, fantasies, emotional and social preference, lifestyle and self-identification (Klein et al., 1985; Weinrich et al., 1993). I know an asexual woman who had identified as hetero until she met a pansexual woman who satisfies her strong emotional needs. We are indeed multidimensional beings in this regard.

Maybe each of us ought to make a promise for the New Year to get involved in the community and press for the changes we all want: to make laws fairer, to stamp out h8t and end discrimination? Maybe you do that already? Maybe I should start a thread for people to brag about something positive they've done in their community? I'm on my LGBT council at Uni, so I'm already ahead!!

From our perspective in 2013 it seems blatantly obvious that there are no binaries when it comes to orientation, expression and attraction (and I don't know what the OP's been reading), but people had to advocate for change and we wouldn't be where we are now without their work (and suffering).

 

[haurni]

I found an interesting paper online relating to the topic of labels and their application in the area of sexual orientation. It's a PhD thesis but it doesn't appear to have been published, so I'll present the abstract here and some of the significant findings for your information and intellectual delectation (I'm looking at you, StickyGirl and StellaOmega, if you're peeking).

The Impact of Social Context on the Conceptualization of Sexual Orientation: A Construct Validity Investigation.

Ilana J. Tannenbaum, 2006

ABSTRACT

Despite the volume of research and theory addressing the definition of sexual orientation, there has never been a widely accepted consensus on how the construct of sexual orientation should be defined. When assessing sexual orientation to assign individuals to different cohorts, the vast majority of researchers do so with the essentialist assumption that whatever components they use to define and measure sexual orientation (a) are valid, and (b) mean the same thing to all individuals despite variations in social context. This approach is questionable because, while certain components have been hypothesized to be part of the construct, the accuracy of these components has never been tested for construct validity among different sexual orientation communities. The most common method of assessing sexual orientation for research is through self-reported label (Chung & Katayama, 1996), which has received some support as a valid measure (Weinrich, 1993). The purpose of the present study was to examine sexual orientation constructs used by the academic community for construct validity among individuals in heterosexual, lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered (LGBT), and academic (expert) communities. The second purpose was to examine personal identification with components of sexual orientation for comparability with self-reported label, as obtained in the Demographics section. The results of this study indicated that significant differences in socially constructed meaning existed for 11 of the 14 examined components: Sexual Behavior, Fantasy, Social Preference, Relationship Status, Sexual Orientation Identity Acceptance, Gender Identity, Sex Role Identity, Social Context, Sociocultural experiences, and Biology. The data suggested that only Self-Identified Sexual Orientation Label, Emotional Preference, and Time maintained their meaning and value across sexual orientation, sex, and expert versus layperson communities. Sexual Attraction was rated as most important in conceptualizing sexual orientation by every cohort, although significant differences in these ratings across groups were present.
In particular, the expert sample rated the components of Attraction, Sexual Orientation Self-Identification, Fantasy, and Emotional Preference as most important in conceptualizing sexual orientation, whereas the LGBT group rated Attraction, Emotional Preference, Sexual Orientation Self-Identification, and Sexual Orientation Identity Acceptance as most important, and the heterosexual sample rated Attraction, Sexual Orientation Identity Acceptance, Behavior, Gender Identity, and Sexual Orientation Self-Identification as the most important. Ratings of components were also analyzed by sexual orientation group (homosexual, bisexual, and heterosexual), sex (male, female, and transgendered), and sex-by-sexual orientation, where some data emerged indicating significant differences in the conceptualization of sexual orientation by these social contexts as well.
Finally, in support of the proposed hypothesis, personal identification with the examined components in this study corresponded strongly with each component, and with overall ‘profile’ scores (averages), of every examined cohort.
The present study provides some evidence that social context does play a role in the social construction of sexual orientation. It also provides support for self-reported Self-Identified Sexual Orientation label as an accurate measure for grouping participants into sexual orientation cohorts for research purposes. Implications of these findings for counseling psychology and future research are discussed.

Some findings:

"Four factors emerged from the analysis of the ATCSOS [Attitudes Toward Components of Sexual Orientation Scale], which were identified as General Sexual Orientation Components, Attraction/Fantasy Components, External Social-Cultural Components, and Temporal-Biological Components. Three factors emerged for the PITCSOS [Personal Identification Toward Components of Sexual Orientation Scale], which were identified as Present-Ideal, Socialize With, and Past factors." (p.78)

"[This study] lends credence to the construct validity of sexual orientation as operationalized by Self-Identification alone, which is currently how sexual orientation is most commonly measured." (p.126-7)

"The component of Attraction [...] was consistently rated as the most important component in conceptualizing sexual orientation by all groups. Arguably, Attraction could be considered equally important in defining sexual orientation across cohorts." (p.127)

"[T]he Expert cohort indicated a very narrow conceptualization of sexual orientation, rating only six components above the midpoint level of importance: Attraction, Self-Identification, Fantasy, Emotional Preference, Biology, and Behavior." (p.127-8)

"[T]he Heterosexual cohort reported Behavior and Relationship Status to be more important than the other two cohorts, which was as predicted. These findings supported previous literature suggesting that heterosexuals value overt sexual and relationship behavior more highly than LGBT groups in conceptualizing sexual orientation." (p.128)

"[H]omosexual and bisexual participants appeared to conceptualize sexual orientation more strictly than the Heterosexual cohort (but not nearly as narrowly as the Expert cohort [...])." (p.131)

"Another noteworthy finding for the Bisexual cohort was the increase in reported homosexual preferences over time." (p.136)

"All of the cohorts examined, regardless of sexual orientation community, sex, or layperson versus expert community conceptualized sexual orientation differently, depending on which component was under consideration. This outcome provides strong evidence against the assumption that any component used to measure sexual orientation means the same thing to all populations under study." (p.140-1)

"Therefore these findings suggest that the components of Self-Identified Sexual Orientation Label, Emotional Preference, and Time offer the most validity and consistency in grouping participants into sexual orientation groups in research. Furthermore, when considered in conjunction with the existing literature, the results of this study lend support to the specific use of Self-Identified Sexual Orientation Label only in grouping participants into sexual orientation cohorts for research purposes." (p.141-2)

 

[stickygirl]

What? Why you looking at me - I'm handing out Self-Identified Sexual Orientation Labels right now: fill them in, wear them with pride
Phew... yea. Splendid stuff. Good to know someone is spending time, taking our differences seriously (!) and seems to vindicate the disconnect in language and opinion we see rolled out in discussion on Lit. I couldn't help but note that the experts rated Fantasy as important indicators of sexual preferences: says a lot about experts

 

[stickygirl]

I don't mind a good argument, happy to wrangle all day long, but not if it's getting distressing for people - and I'm not always good at noticing when that happens, or extricating myself when it does.

And I apologise for trying to stifle debate because I just hate hearing people arguing or bitching at each other online. I find it very stressful but most don't. I even hate soap TV which feed off hate.

Yeah, this is something I've encountered elsewhere and find really interesting, that distinction between male/female identity and masculine/feminine expression. I have a trans woman friend who's a stereotypical jeans-and-flannel butch lesbian; if it was just about expression, it would've been a helluva lot easier for her to be a cis guy and wear the same clothes and have relationships with girls. But identity and expression are both important to her; she's very definite about being a woman and always ID'd that way.

Your trans woman friend needed to express herself in such a way that she should be 'read' as having traditionally male characteristics, or at least non-femme, so to that extent she is reinforcing the stereotype. But what is the alternative? Should we criticise individuals for using the only tools we have at hand to transmit to strangers what they should expect from us in social interactions? I for one don't because dress and gender expression is simply another language. To camouflage our ID is a dangerous game, because people react strongly if they feel they've been deceived. I have no criticism of her - stuff the stereotype nay-sayers.

OTOH, I've also heard of people who didn't have that sharp distinction. Aram Hosie (partner of Louise Pratt, one of our federal Senators) ID'd as "hard butch/cis female" when they met, but gradually shifted to "trans male". I have to assume that different people experience these things in different ways.

Exactly. Look at any musician, any artist and see how their work changes over time so why should sexual orientation be any different? I'm thinking back to another thread - the Is She Isn't She one that SB started and there were impassioned words spoken about lesbian identity. Thinking about that now, I don't doubt their conviction because I feel the same about my gender, but there is still plenty of room within the lesbian ID to be individual and express yourself any damned way you choose ( to borrow a SB turn of phrase!! )

 

[haurni]

I couldn't help but note that the experts rated Fantasy as important indicators of sexual preferences: says a lot about experts

I'm guessing the experts think that fantasies are a clue to 'unacknowledged' orientation. Gays know they're gay, so attraction, emotional preference and self-identification are obvious and fantasy is relatively unimportant. The (self-identified) straights fall back on behaviour and essentialist ideas of gender in addition to attraction. Maybe some of the straights are having gay fantasies and just choose to dismiss them as meaningless in terms of orientation - "I'm not gay! I'm a masculine guy and I have a girlfriend, see?" These are self-report questionnaires, after all. We are reassured by media reports that straight guys can think about cock and still be all manly an' stuff.

 

[stickygirl]

Could you point Queen Vicki to that link next time she trolls out here?

 

[Stella_Omega]

Thanks, Huarni! I'll be back later... intellectually incapacitated ATM

 

[Dyslexicea]

I'm guessing the experts think that fantasies are a clue to 'unacknowledged' orientation. Gays know they're gay, so attraction, emotional preference and self-identification are obvious and fantasy is relatively unimportant. The (self-identified) straights fall back on behaviour and essentialist ideas of gender in addition to attraction. Maybe some of the straights are having gay fantasies and just choose to dismiss them as meaningful in terms of orientation - "I'm not gay! I'm a masculine guy and I have a girlfriend, see?" These are self-report questionnaires, after all. We are reassured by media reports that straight guys can think about cock and still be all manly an' stuff.

You mean men think of other things besides cock? I do find it humorous that men spend so much time and write so many things which focus on cock and not just their own, all men not just straight men. But you are right, it is ironic that straight men seem to focus so much attention on other men's genital. For this reason I tend not to think of men who obsess over just other men's cocks, you know the type 'I love to suck cock but I don't want sex with a man', as truly being bisexual, although I have no other term to define them.

According to some studies the most homophobic men are those who are unsure of their orientation. Still fantasy is not reality and we all have fantasies, many nonsexual, which we really wouldn't want to become reality. I do think fantasies of a sexual same sex nature can be a sign that a person needs to at least consider her/his orientation but I'm not convinced a same sex fantasy is a good indication of orientation.

 

[Bramblethorn]

But what is the alternative? Should we criticise individuals for using the only tools we have at hand to transmit to strangers what they should expect from us in social interactions? I for one don't because dress and gender expression is simply another language. To camouflage our ID is a dangerous game, because people react strongly if they feel they've been deceived. I have no criticism of her - stuff the stereotype nay-sayers.

Indeed. 'Course, not camouflaging can be dangerous too - less likely to provoke a "you tricked me" reaction but almost guaranteed to attract everyday transphobia.

I have a trans male friend who recently started a new job in a new town. All his ID documents are still female, and he didn't know whether the new workplace was going to be trans-friendly, so he decided it was safer to present himself as female at work for the time being. (With HRT he's androgynous enough to go either way, and he deliberately picked a name that isn't obviously one or the other.) I presume that requires keeping a strong separation between social and work life.